Archive for November, 2010

Subject: Developments in Germany in the Williamson appeal matter during the past week concerning his “holocaust minimization” broadcast on Swedish TV and filmed in Germany

32 minutes after lawyer Nahrath, a member of the rightist NPD, informed Judge Eisvogel that he had been added to Bishop Richard Williamson’s legal team, Nahrath received a phone call from Der Spiegel. It is speculated that Der Spiegel’s source of news on the new development had to be its friend lawyer [Maximilian] Krah, an associate of the lawyer Lossman who resigned when Nahrath was added to the legal team.*

In order to placate the priestly Catholic fraternity of the SSPX, Williamson said he will drop his lawyer Nahrath, and his appeal, and asked that the SSPX pay his fine. SSPX Superior Fellay agreed, but the next day Fellay publicly denounced Bishop Williamson and repeated his order to Williamson to drop Nahrath or be ejected from the SSPX. Then Williamson told Fellay that he would continue his appeal but drop Nahrath, reasoning that “A willow will bend whereas an oak will snap and break.” Through all of this Williamson never actually spoke to Fellay. Williamson retained a new lawyer on Nov. 26, politically neutral and with a good professional reputation, but thus far not publicly identified.

*Williamson’s defense lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, told German Press Agency dpa that they had “amicably ended” their cooperation, indicating that this was in part due to Williamson’s decision to hire another lawyer. He said the name would soon be made public.

This bit of information comes from an investigative work anonymously posted in a few places on the internet (and immediately censored from at least one of them). I copy the entire work below with the following caveats: I don’t see that the author has proven his charge that Mr. Krah is of Judaic ancestry, as likely as it seems. It would be quite “traditional,” after all for such a champion of 15th-century aristocrat Catholicism; such a temporally ambitious man as Bp. Bernard Fellay to have a “Court ‘Jew’.” Regardless of what his actual ethnic identity may be, it’s clear Maximilian Krah fulfills that role for Bp. Fellay. Mr. Krah’s documented Zionist fundraising is highly problematic for anyone that claims to oppose racial supremacy.

Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?

The Timeline –

January 2009A Corporate Attorney by the name of Maximilian Krah became publicly linked with the affairs of the Society of Saint Pius X.

January 20, 2009Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior of SSPX in Germany, issued a press release in which it was stated: “We have not seen the interview given by Bishop Williamson to Swedish television. As soon as we see it we will submit it to scrutiny and obtain the advice of attorneys.”

But, in fact, the attorney to whom Menzingen would turn had already been put into place.

It was none other than Maximilian Krah of the Dresden Corporate Law company, Fetsch Rechtsanwälte: the partners being Cornelius J. Fetsch, Maximilian Krah and Daniel Adler.

January 19, 2009One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.

The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):“Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”

In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?

The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.

As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a co-signature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. Curious.

Maximilian Krah is a Board Member of other associations that control SSPX funds.

In the September 2010 edition of a publication issued by EMBA-Global we read that the “EMBA-Global programme is designed for experienced managers, professionals and executives who seek to develop the skills, knowledge and networks to operate as successful Global leaders, anywhere in the world,” and that it “brings together an elite international network of business professionals.”

Maximilian Krah is pictured on page 6 of the September 2010 publication along with the following, accompanying text:“Maximilian Krah. German. Lawyer. Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, Vienna, Austria. Lawyer with substantial international experience. Currently a Board Member of an Austrian foundation. Responsible for wealth and asset management of the settlement capital, and for the project development of non-profit projects all over the world, which are sponsored by using the achieved funds.”

The full name of the company mentioned above is Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef and Marcellus. Jaidof is the seat of the SSPX District headquarters in Austria.

The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets will worry many of their faithful who would, rightly, believe that such activity is both risky on the material plane, and questionable on the moral level. There may, of course, be those who are less concerned, feeling that it is acceptable practice in the modern world, and aimed at “a final good.” Are the latter right?

Krah first made his appearance in the international sphere, as far as rank-and-file traditionalists are concerned, in the wake of what has been dubbed by the mainstream media as “the Williamson Affair.” His comments on the bishop were less than flattering, exuded a liberal view of the world, and poured oil on the fire of controversy that raged across the world, and against both the bishop and the SSPX, for months on end. It has been plain for a long time now that the “interview” and the “ensuing controversy” were a set-up, but it was, and still is, a matter of conjecture as to which person(s) and/or agencies engineered the set-up. Perhaps subsequent information in this email will throw more light on this troubling question?

What is beyond conjecture, however, is that Bishop Fellay’s attitude towards Bishop Williamson changed dramatically. Even those who will hear nothing against Bishop Fellay have noticed this change. The change has been public and persistent, and has been both insulting and humiliating for Bishop Williamson. It has also been largely carried out in the mainstream media, and, in Germany, the notoriously anti-Catholic communist magazine, Der Spiegel, has found a favored place, much to the astonishment of traditionalists everywhere. It has been there that we heard the shocking references to Bishop Williamson as “an unexploded hand grenade,” “a dangerous lump of uranium,” etc, as well as the insulting insinuations that he is disturbed or suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. The question, let it be remembered, is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Williamson, whether one likes or dislikes either Bishop Williamson or Bishop Fellay, but whether or not a man has a right to express a personal opinion on a matter of secular history. The ambush of Williamson by the Swedish interviewer, Ali Fegan, said by some Swedes to be a Turkish Jew, left Williamson on the spot: to get up and walk out in silence, thereby providing the media with the hook “that his refusal to speak is proof of his revisionist beliefs” or simply to lie. Williamson made his choice. Whether we agree or not is neither here nor there.

In the past, nearly two decades earlier in Canada, Williamson made “controversial comments” on the same subject at what was understood to be a private meeting of Catholics. A journalist, however, found out and made a story out of it. The relevance of this episode is that the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre contrasts remarkably with that of Bishop Fellay. The first just ignored the “controversy,” treating a secular and anti-Catholic media with total disdain, and the matter quickly became a dead issue. The latter played to the media gallery, broke corporate unity with his brother in the episcopacy (specifically warned against by Archbishop Lefebvre during the 1988 consecrations), and turned what should have been a molehill into a mountain.

ENTER KRAH

Krah is instructed to find an attorney to defend Williamson. He opts for Matthias Lossmann as defense attorney, a strange choice. It is strange, because Lossmann is a member of the extremist Die Grünen party (The Greens), an organization that is well-known in Germany as a water melon: green on the outside, red on the inside. A party that is pro-feminist, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and harbors Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a member of the European Parliament in its ranks. Besides his frontline involvement in the 1968 Red turbulence in the universities in France, he is a known advocate of pedophilia, as his autobiography demonstrates. What was Krah thinking of, then, in choosing such an attorney to represent a Catholic bishop? Was Lossmann really the only attorney in Germany prepared to take this case?

Krah’s choice is strange for a second reason. Krah is a member of a political party, but not the Greens. Krah is a prominent political activist and officer in Dresden, in the east of Germany, of the liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel. Chancellor Merkel also comes from the east of Germany and is commonly referred to in that country as “Stasi-Merkel” after revelations and photographic evidence came to light hinting that she was recruited and formed by the Stasi, the former East German State Secret Police; a common approach made to young people, particularly those seeking professional careers, in the former Communist State of the German Democratic Republic. The same Merkel that publicly reproached Benedict XVI for having lifted the so-called “excommunication” of “holocaust denier” Williamson, and demanded that the Pope reverse the decision.

Krah is pictured on the editorial page, page 3, of a CDU publication, of May 2006, in the link below:

He portrays himself in the journal as some kind of Christian (though we are informed via SSPX faithful that he attends the SSPX chapel in Dresden), yet chooses an attorney for Williamson that could not have been worse.

Remember, too, that after the first Der Spiegel hatchet job on Williamson, Krah turned up at the British HQ of the SSPX in London at short notice and sought to get Williamson to do a second interview with the disreputable magazine. Williamson refused to do so, in spite of the fact that Krah had come with these journalists with the express sanction of Bishop Fellay! How in God’s name could Mgr. Fellay have thought that a second bite at the apple by Der Spiegel journalists would help the cause of Williamson or the SSPX? Go figure.

Moreover, consider the approach of both Krah and Lossmann in Williamson’s first trial. There was no attempt to defend him, though it is plain that Williamson had not broken German law, contrary to public perceptions generated by the media. What occurred, according to non-Catholics who attended the trial, was a shocking parody of a defense: Krah, unctuous, smug and mocking in respect of the bishop; Lossmann, weak, hesitating, insipid. Both effectively “conceded” Williamson’s “guilt,” but nevertheless argued for “leniency.” At no time did they address the legal questions at hand, questions that did not relate directly to the “Holocaust” and its veracity or otherwise, but as to whether or not the provisions of the law actually applied to the Williamson case. In other words, a Caiphas defense.

It can, therefore, come as no surprise that Williamson decided to appeal the Court’s decision, and to engage an independent attorney who would address the actual legal questions of the case. That Bishop Fellay, on the basis of media reports, ordered him publicly to sack this attorney or face expulsion is a great surprise, one might even say a scandal, for such situations require knowledge of all the facts, serious reflection, and sagacity. The Press Communiqué demonstrated none of these requirements, and merely represented one more example of Bishop Fellay’s unexplained public hostility to Mgr. Williamson. It is significant that the DICI statement referred to Williamson’s new attorney as someone who was associated with “neo-nazis,” this being a reference to the German National Democrats, an organization that has been in existence for about 50 years and has elected members in some regional German parliaments. If it had been “Nazi” it would have been banned under the German Constitution a long time ago – as many such groups have found out over the years in Germany. Moreover, while DICI chose the term “neo-nazi,” the British Daily Telegraph chose “far right,” as did those well-known anti-semitic journals, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz.

Did Krah have an input into this communiqué? We cannot know for sure, but we do know something about Krah that is not common knowledge. Maximilian Krah is Jewish. He presents himself as some sort of ‘Christian’ in the link provided above, yet we find a more revealing picture of Maximilian Krah, at this link below, in attendance at a fundraising event in New York during September 2010.

The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jewish. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.

However, Krah is at the financial center of the SSPX; he has done no favors to Williamson and his case by his statements and actions; and may be responsible for things yet unknown or unseen.

Since his arrival on the scene, traditionalists have witnessed

1) The abrupt disappearance of important theological articles from District websites regarding Judaism and the pivotal role played by our “elder brothers,” as Bishop Fellay referred to them this year, in Finance, Freemasonry and Communism, none of which could have been construed as “anti-semitic” by the time honored standards of the Catholic Church.

3) The communist journal, Der Spiegel, being favored with arranged interviews and stories to keep the “Williamson Affair” on-the-boil, thereby tending toward the “marginalization” of Williamson.

4) A scandalous and erroneous article being published in The Angelus, in which the faithful were taught that a Talmudic rabbi was a saint, and that the said rabbi was positively instrumental in preparing the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the conversion of St. Paul.

All these facts combined necessarily raise a whole series of questions. These questions can only be answered by those in a position to know all the facts. In this case that person is Bishop Fellay, since he is the Superior General, has unrestricted access to all aspects of the Society’s work, and obviously has taken Mr. Krah into his confidence on both the financial and legal levels.

This writer is making no accusations or insinuations against Bishop Fellay at any level. He is simply requesting that he make public reply to the following questions in order that the doubt and worry, which is widespread among the clergy and faithful since the events of last year, is allayed, and soothed by the balm of Truth.

Your Excellency,

1) Were you aware that Maximilian Krah, who currently has significant power and influence in important areas of the internal workings of the SSPX, was Jewish when he was taken into your confidence?

2) Who introduced, or recommended, Maximilian Krah in his professional capacity to the Society of Saint Pius X?

3) If you were not aware of Krah’s background and political connections, why was he not carefully investigated before being brought into the inner-circle and inner-workings of SSPX?

4) Why does Krah, who is not a cleric of the SSPX or even a longtime supporter of the Society, have such singular power to handle SSPX funds?

5) Who are the shareholders of Dello Sarto AG? Are they all clergy of the SSPX or related congregations? Are the shares transferable through purchase? In the event of the death, defection or resignation of a shareholder, how are the shares distributed? Who in any of these cases has the power to confer, designate, sell or otherwise dispose of these shares? You? The Bursar? The Manager? The Board Members? The General Council?

6) Why is the Society of Saint Pius X engaged in financial activities which may be common in modern society, but which are hardly likely to be in conformity with Church teaching pertaining to money, its nature, its use and its ends?

7) Why was Krah allowed to keep the pot boiling in the “Williamson Affair” by arranging interviews and providing stories for Der Spiegel magazine? How could an alleged Christian Democrat be the intermediary with a notorious communist journal?

8) Why was Krah permitted to impose upon your brother bishop an attorney belonging to the extreme left-wing Die Grünen?

9) Why was your brother bishop threatened with expulsion from SSPX for merely hiring an attorney who was actually interested in fighting the unjust and ridiculous charge of incitement? Is it not the case that those of the Household of the Faith must take precedence over those who are without?

10) Can you explain why your public attitude to Williamson has changed, why you have continuously belittled him in public – while he has not responded in kind at any time?

11) What do you intend to do about Mr. Krah given that his position within the Society is one of influence, but who cannot seriously be regarded as someone who has the best interests of Catholic Tradition at heart? Will you move as quickly to resolve this question as you have in respect of Williamson?

There is no malice meant or intended in this communication. There is quite simply a tremendous fear for the future of the SSPX and its direction

POST SCRIPT

For those who think that the writer is muckraking, I would like to point out that it was me that made public the impending sell-out of the Transalpine Redemptorists several months before it took place. I received brickbats for the relevant post at the time, and some calumniated me – but I was shown to be correct after a short period. This writer has not posted anywhere since that time. He does so now because he possesses information, as he did in regard to the Redemptorists, which needed to be made known widely for the good of Catholic Tradition. Nothing would please me more than to have Bishop Fellay answer these serious questions and put Catholic minds everywhere at rest.

The usefulness of puzzling over, debating and discussing papal double-speak is limited. While we ‘dialogue’ over these two-faced statements, a single agenda forges steadily on a clear trajectory. Oh, it may zig a hair to the ‘left’ and zag a bit to the ‘right’ at times, but trajectory is determined from long-term trends, not on short term events.

Now, it may not seem very ‘traditional’ to some Traditionalists to take first principles from the founding text of Christianity rather than pious 15th-century mystical works or apparitions, but I guess it’s my cross to be ‘weird’ or ‘Protestant’ in that sense. I look to the Gospel and see Jesus stating the principle that it’s fruits, not words, that we know intent by. This is a crucial Christian principle. Why do so few heed it? Why do so many Christians behave as though Jesus taught, “Respect prevaricators and give them the benefit of the doubt in spite of all evidence” or “Yea-no speech should be ‘dialogued’ over until a consensus interpretation divorced from observable facts is arrived at”? The very presence of yea-no speech is proof that we’re hearing evil rather than Christian teaching according to the Gospel principle taught by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount.

The Pope proclaims in his book, Light of the World, essentially, “Jesus is Savior of the Jews – to pray for Jews to convert to Jesus is to wound them.” This is patent yea-no speech. According to Jesus’ principle, we know we’re hearing evil: “Let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” The whole of yea-no speech is of evil. To seize upon the yea as evidence of orthodoxy as if the no didn’t accompany it is to participate in the same evil.

Yea-no speech cannot proceed from a good motive. Neither can there be any good motive for an observer pretending that the yea hasn’t a negating no attached. To do so is self-deception at best. On the test of Matthew 5;37 this Papal teaching is of evil.

Then, according to Jesus’ test of Matthew 7;16-20 we look at the fruits. There is no evidence of Joseph Ratzinger in his 83 years ever converting one of these people he calls “Jews” to Jesus as far as I am aware, and I’m an avid researcher of such things. I’ve been asking doubters to produce such evidence since 2008 to no avail, but it seems a nonsensical exercise. Why would a man try to convert “Jews” if he believes so much as a prayer for their conversion that they don’t even hear wounds them?

It’s not for lack of opportunity that this man doesn’t evangelize “Jews.” He ‘dialogues’ with them weekly, visits their synagogues regularly and never uses it as an occasion to evangelize. On the contrary, he uses these occasions to confirm their error and delusion. The fruits of Joseph Ratzinger’s work concerning “The Jews” are of the most rotten sort: not one conversion and mass delusion among “Jews” and Christians alike on this key Gospel doctrine.

Let’s be frank, the fruits of the Pope’s apocalyptic theology–praying for the end to come quickly so “The Jews” will convert–is of the same lunatic tree that bore “Pastors” John Hagee and Tim LaHaye’s eschatology. What is Hagee and Benedict doing when they discourage evangelizing “Jews”? They’ve made the Gospel of no effect. They’ve neutralized the one thing that has the power to save their souls and impede their hostility against us. They’re buying these “children of the covenant” time to build up Pharisaic Talmudism. How much time? All of it! For whatever time there is left until the end of time we’re to refrain from “wounding” evangelization of “Jews” according to the Hagee-Ratzinger dispensation.

What can be said of ‘traditionalists’ who call this sucker deal–these innovations and their objective rotten fruits–consistent with tradition? Whether it be self-deception or willful deception of others, it’s part and parcel of the evil from whence the teaching itself proceeds.

… naturally what happened in the Third Reich struck us as Germans, and drove us all the more to look at the people of Israel with humility, shame, and love.

In my theological formation, these things were interwoven, and marked the pathway of my theological thought…

A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy. In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jews, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament. For this reason, I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jewish friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united. For this reason, the arguments used polemically against me by a series of theologians are rash, and do not do justice to what was done.

Obviously, this prayer is not a papal masterstroke and I don’t anticipate a retraction of The Remnant’s sugar coating of this poisonous prayer even after the Pope himself has admitted its intention is entirely eschatological and does not desire conversion at the present time.

… The problem with the new prayer, despite its hearkening to Romans 11;25-26, is that it takes the present-time intention of the original prayer and thrusts it into the realm of mystery and prophesy dealing with the future. The intention and meaning of the original prayer was perfectly clear: Christians pray for the conversion of the Jews here and now. Romans 11;25-26 deals with a mystery prophesied to take place in the future at the last days. The message seems to be that we should pray for the end-times to come quickly so the “Jews” will convert, and that they don’t need Christ in the meantime. This is not, nor has it ever been the position of the Church. The Church always sought the conversion of Jews–real and fake “Jews” alike–not just at the second coming, but from the Pentecost until the time of the Second Vatican Council–at all times. St. Vincent Ferrer and all of the evangelists knew nothing of the new theology of the “elder brothers.” Apparently, he was wrong?

Benedict wrote a new prayer as a means of remedying what he viewed in the traditional prayer’s intention of present time conversion as “a wound to the Jews.” What he has done is severely wound Jesus’ mission and His Gospel and the spiritual welfare of these ‘Jews’ that he calls ‘elder brothers.’ If the Pope’s role as shepherd and vicar of Christ has any meaning at all it is to seek the salvation of ALL souls. But he has contrived a dispensation from the Church’s mission for a particular class of people just as Vatican II peritus Gregory Baum said should be done at a 1974 B’nai B’rith conference titled, “Auschwitz: A New Era?”:

After Auschwitz the Christian churches no longer wish to convert the Jews. While they may not be sure of the theological grounds that dispense them from this mission, the churches have become aware that asking the Jews to become Christians is a spiritual way of blotting them out of existence and thus only reinforces the effects of the Holocaust. The churches, moreover, realize the deadly irony implicit in a Christian plea for the conversion of the Jews; for after Auschwitz and the participation of the nations, it is the Christian world that is in need of conversion.

Benedict says that his German ‘Holocaust’ “humility and shame,” among other things, “marked the pathway of [his] theological thought” causing him to see traditional prayer for the conversion of “the people of Israel” as “a wound to the Jews” and so, “a modification was necessary.” There’s little difference between what Benedict XVI says and what Gregory Baum says other than the degree of subtlety. The message is clear: Because of ‘The Holocaust’ Christians, not “Jews,” must be converted. The intention within Christian prayer must change.

It’s not Christian to await the conversion of a remnant of Jews in the last days and to disregard the spiritual welfare of real or counterfeit Jews until then. Any Christian who buys this message will have been converted, and that would be a satanic masterstroke.

Hasidim take great pride in the ability to trick and cajole “the goyim.” However, I suspect that some of the names listed below are somewhat aware of this fact and go along with the charade anyway bargaining that rabbinic association might afford them cover from the “anti-semite” bludgeon. Whatever little benefit they may receive is far outweighed by the confusion and misdirection suffered by their followers and undeserved prestige accrued to Talmud, Kabbalah and Khazar “Jews” among people who should know better.

On Columbus Day (not yet totally banned by the Thought Police as “oppressive” and “Eurocentric”) I had the privilege of attending a talk by my friend and mentor Rabbi Mayer Schiller. The Rabbi is one of the leading Jewish racial realists and a leading traditionalist luminary—especially striking given that his formal secular education ended after eighth grade He spoke to a small conservative group in Manhattan about his intellectual journey through the post-war American Right. (Interested readers are welcome to email me for more detailed information about this group).

Rabbi Schiller grew up in a Brooklyn-Queens liberal Jewish family. He remembered attending international soccer games with his grandfather who refused to stand for the anthems of Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal, but sang along to “The Internationale”—the communist hymn that was then Yugoslavia’s anthem. Like many other American Jews at that time, the Rabbi’s grandfather did not see a contradiction between his pro-communist views and the fact that he was a successful businessman who would be either imprisoned or executed under the Reds.

Rabbi Schiller says he became a conservative at the age of ten after watching a documentary about Sen. Robert Taft. His views were further developed by Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative); (Rabbi Schiller later wrote The (Guilty) Conscience of a Conservative) National Review (which at that time was race-realist and opposed integration); and the John Birch Society’s American Opinion. The young Craig Schiller, as the Rabbi was known during his secular days, greeted Goldwater’s 1964 campaign with jubilant euphoria.

He was crushed when Goldwater lost—and later when, as he puts it, William F. Buckley “decided to sell out and dropped all his principles”.

At this time, Rabbi Schiller became a part of the Skver Hassidic movement in Rockland County, after he and his middle school classmates had decided to try living as observant Jews for a month.

Another major transformation occurred in the Rabbi’s life at around the same time: he discovered L. Brent Bozell Jr.’s traditionalist Catholic magazine Triumph, which featured authors like Thomas Molnar and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. He realized that traditional religious beliefs are an integral part of real conservatism. The Rabbi was so taken by Bozell and Triumph that he approached Patricia Buckley Bozell and offered to write a biography of her late husband.

Triumph writer Thomas Molnar (who passed away this July), a prolific author and a professor at Brooklyn College, Yale, and University of Budapest, was both a friend and a mentor (“a rebbe”) to Rabbi Schiller. The Rabbi was a young rabbinical student when he read Molnar’s seminal The Counter-Revolution and came down to Manhattan to meet him. When the Rabbi started talking about the Constitution, Molnar cut him off with the first of many witty remarks in his charming Hungarian accent: “The Constitution? Look around you, what do these Puerto Ricans care about the Constitution?”

The Rabbi remembers Molnar as a brilliant, yet realistic Catholic reactionary who considered the words “democracy” and “capitalism” to be obscenities and ridiculed Pope John Paul II for sounding like “a southern California health store owner: it’s all about love and peace! What about Heaven and Hell?”

Molnar derided The National Review as an “empty, soulless, and faceless publication” and had no respect for the neocons.

Like other traditionalist thinkers, Molnar did not have much hope for the West. To Molnar, non-Western mass immigration was a symptom, not a cause of the West’s decline. The real problem was that the West lost its will to live. When Rabbi Schiller visited South Africa in the last months of white rule to encourage Afrikaner nationalists and demonstrate his support for them, Molnar replied: “You must encourage them to do only one thing—run away!”

Interestingly, the neocons and the ADL/$PLC thought police never bothered Molnar. Rabbi Schiller says he was too far above their level of discussion—chickens do not fly high enough to attack an eagle.

Rabbi Schiller’s affinity for traditionalist Catholicism led him to establish a warm relationship with the anti-Vatican II Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The SSPX seminary in Ridgefield, CT invited Rabbi Schiller to speak to their seminarians on numerous occasions. And every time, the Rabbi reports, he was received with the utmost courtesy and respect. Once, a seminarian even addressed Rabbi Schiller as “Father”. The seminarians held the Rabbi in such high regard that, before Archbishop Lefebvre was to consecrate several SSPX priests as bishops in defiance of Rome, they sought out the Rabbi to ask his opinion on the matter.

The late Joe Sobran was another pious Catholic friend of Rabbi Schiller. The Rabbi remembers Joe as a kind, sweet, and humble man who was a brilliant analyst yet managed to be very funny in his prose. Unlike Molnar and Rabbi Schiller, Sobran still believed in political activism. But Rabbi Schiller recognized, like others, that Joe Sobran’s heart and mind were engaged by questions of immigration and race.

With regards to Sobran’s views on the Jews and Israel, the Rabbi believes that Sobran’s criticism of the former only arose as a result of Buckley’s and the neocons’ hysterical reaction to his criticism of the latter. Sobran was shocked and hurt by the neocons’ attack on him when he dared to question the special relationship between America and Israel. This attack led to his progressively more outspoken criticism of Israel and the Jewish role in America.

In contrast to more critical obituaries, Rabbi Schiller says he will always remember his recently departed friend as a “disheveled intellectual who had a heart overflowing with love.” Rabbi Schiller’s glowing endorsement is displayed prominently on Sobran’s publisher’s website.

Jean Raspail’s novel The Camp of the Saints was another major influence on Rabbi Schiller. At the Manhattan meeting, the Rabbi talked about how Raspail’s book underlined the fact that we have a common European identity, which includes such things as “the sense of critical thought, romance, heroism, individual integrity, and the spirituality of life”. All of these were shaped by Greece, Rome, Judaism, Christianity, and the Norse lands.

Nowadays, the Rabbi commented, any sort of defense or even “public concern with the fate of European civilization is open to attacks from the thought police”.

Like Thomas Molnar, Rabbi Mayer Schiller believes that there is no hope for Western man because he “had his soul torn out” and “internalized the terror” to such a degree that he is not only afraid to speak in defense of his civilization, but is even afraid to think pro-Western, politically incorrect thoughts.

As for the nationalist parties in Europe, the Rabbi does not have much hope for two reasons.

* First, as soon as a nationalist party will get above 10-15 % of the vote, the repressive apparatus of the EU will kick in and shut it down. (Indeed, this has already happened with Belgium’s Vlaams Blok and appears about to happen to the British National Party).* Second, nationalist movements are very susceptible to fragmentation and internal squabbles. This tragic fragmentation is due to the fact that “movements that are out of power and have little hope of achieving it are forever substituting internal feuds for the reality of real power”.

The Rabbi says witnessed this firsthand during the split of the National Front in Britain in the 1980s. He is still friends with former National Front leaders Patrick Harrington and David Kerr, whom he says have demonstrated a sense of sympathy towards the Jewish people.

On several occasions, the Rabbi visited Ulster where he attended the Twelfth Of July Unionist parade (“the last legitimate folk festival in the West and the only one without corporate sponsorship”) and met with Reverend Ian Paisley. The Rabbi jokes that his affinity for both traditionalist Catholicism and Ulster unionism presents a big dilemma during Celtic-Rangers soccer games.

But all is not lost for the West. The Rabbi said that “the doctrine of multiculturalism and political correctness is so insane and against reality that it has to be enforced by terror”. Therefore, the Rabbi asserted that, even when Western societies collapse after a long period of cultural and economic decline, there will still be remnants of religious Jews and Christians, as well as social traditionalists who will preserve Western civilization and values.

Rabbi Schiller urged the meeting to create “islands of sanity” similar to those envisioned by the French New Right, an important on influence on Rabbi Schiller’s thought, and carry the Western realm forth in our communities, homes, and hearts.

The last part of Rabbi Schiller’s speech dealt with the Jews and their relationship with the West. The Rabbi blames large-scale secular Jewish participation in the Left on the fact that when European Jews entered political life in the late 1800s, it was the Left that argued for emancipation. Therefore, secular Jews were trained for over a hundred years, to view those who had an “organic understanding and attachment to the Western realm” as a threat.

On the other hand, Orthodox Jews largely abide by a tribal morality. For most modern Orthodox Jews, this means that “it is all about Israel and support for Israel” and for most traditional Orthodox Jews, engagement with the outside world is only done to obtain benefits (government and otherwise) for their communities.

“Sharia law is coming … the Crescent is rising,” says The Remnant’s Michael J. Matt. And how does he know this? Because in Minnesota, “Somali employees began refusing service to Minnesotans attempting to purchase bacon from the frozen food departments of local Target stores” and “[i]n addition, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on more than 5000 cases of Somali cab drivers refusing to pick up fares that failed various Sharia litmus tests.”

Whatever threat these minimum wage-earning Muslim immigrants may constitute I think it safe to call it negligible in comparison to a threat that Mr. Matt and his Remnant Resistance is conspicuously mute on: the coming of the ‘Noahide’ Laws and the rise of the Hexagram.

The Chief Rabbinate of the Israeli state which was able to force the Pope to alter the traditional Catholic liturgy HERE and to recognize Judaism’s oppressive legal system, the so-called ‘Noahide’ LawsHERE, has what one might call real power.

While it might seem like a threat to Michael Matt if a poor immigrant won’t serve him bacon or allow his dog into a taxi, an element that has the power to get the Pope to hack and slash traditional Catholic teaching is the greater threat to Catholics by a cosmic margin. How has Michael Matt and The Remnant Resistance missed this?

Is the Crescent rising? Perhaps it’s rising in a Minnesota Mosque attended by the Target store workers and taxi drivers that Mr. Matt fears, but the Crescent hasn’t risen nearly as high as the Hexagram on the Pope’s mitre.

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men.

Indeed, the salt has lost its savour; the earth is no longer salted. We’re being trodden upon by men but it’s not minimum wage-earning Muslims.

It’s never too late to turn back. If we’ve forgotten what it means to stand for beliefs and principles then perhaps we might benefit from the example of these poor immigrants that Michael Matt so fears.

Below is a sermon from a Reform Judaic synagogue which nonetheless reveals teachings of the religion of Judaism which will be of particular interest to traditionalists who sense the ground shifting beneath a recent revival of traditional externals.

We should be interpreting our times through the unchanging, bedrock teachings of the Gospel, not reinterpreting the Gospel or fashioning dispensations to accommodate our times. Pope Benedict induces a double-mind in his followers when he laments a “dictatorship of relativism” and simultaneously recommends that Christians learn from rabbinic exegesis. Benedict is a vicar of Hillel, not Jesus, when he deceives himself and others into believing that innovations which overturn core principles are actually in accordance with them.

… [The rabbinic interpretation of the biblical narrative] reflects a view that human development is constantly dynamic and emergent. Equally so, it is the foundation for a relationship with God based not on blind faith and passive submission but on mutual engagement and struggle. This view of God and humanity as inherently embraced in an exchange providing mutual self-disclosure is on full display in the Biblical narrative. Even bolder is the rabbinic declaration in the Talmud that whatever may be the divine source of the commandments, their interpretation and application rests now in human hands. God’s voice is not even welcome in the ongoing legal debates.

This is the nature of [rabbinic] covenantal theology: a muscular role for human beings in shaping the framework of a sanctified world and a God willing to cede great authority to God’s creations. It is this perceived relationship of responsible human and loving God that enabled the psalmist to invert the Greek view that truth was an abstraction residing in the heavens and to proclaim instead: “Truth springs up from the earth” (Ps. 85:12)*.

As most elegantly displayed in the Talmud, from this point of view sacred truth is proposal and not conclusion, offer and not certainty. [Rabbinic] theology resists static declarations of truth, which brutalize and constrain humanity in the form of absolute doctrine, creed, and ideology. Far more supple and felicitous is the shapely form of truth in [rabbinic] tradition. Deciding is always penultimate and provisional, always yet again unsettled and displaced by new insights and interpretations. There is no more succinct an expression of this ongoing, unfolding of truth and wisdom than the simple phrase which first appears in early rabbinic writings: olam haba; which sometimes is translated as “the world to come,” but which is better rendered as “the world that is coming” constantly, incessantly. Every day there is a new infusion of divine insight, calling, and purpose.

This presumptuous assertion of human authority in the linguistic gardens planted by the divine Creator, of the ever-unsettled status of any declared truth has profound implications for the concept of “tradition.” … [T]he most successful [rabbinic] myth may be the very notion of “tradition:” the idea that there is an identifiable, essential cultural practice that has remained unchanged and true to its original formulation centuries ago.

Tradition is sometimes used as a bludgeon to intimidate those seeking to innovate. At other times it appears as a plaintive cry from the mouth of one adrift in storm-tossed seas of shifting historical epochs. Both of these formulations are initially wielded by Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof as he seeks to navigate in a world no longer familiar to him: threatened by revolution and counter-revolution on the political plane; challenged by his daughters on the domestic front; and provoked to re-examine in his most intimate relationship, that with his wife Golde, the very notion of love. The joke that this simple and holy man finally gets and shares with us is that we are constantly reinterpreting and recreating our inherited cultural patterns and that the [rabbinic] genius has been to call the resulting innovations consistent with rather than a rupture from the past …

*“Truth springs up from the earth” (Ps. 85:12 or 84:12 in Vulgate). This likens truth to a rock or foundation. See: Jesus, Gospel of Matthew 7;24-27: “Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.”

It’s precisely the rabbinic “genius” that takes a passage of scripture which teaches that truth is fixed and interprets it to mean the precise opposite for rabbinic self-aggrandizement. Jesus tells us that a wise man’s philosophy, theology and deeds proceed from fixed, bedrock truths; those of a foolish man shift like sand and lead to ruin. It’s for good cause that Jesus taught His followers to beware the doctrines of the Pharisees whose ‘truth’ is molded like clay, or made to appear or disappear like magic. Why is the Pope telling his followers to learn from the doctrines of the Pharisees via their heirs, the rabbis?

Like NBA’s Nets, European Jewish group gets an oligarch, but some see Soviet-style takeover

Uriel Heilman – JTA

November 2, 2010

BERLIN (JTA) — Two Jewish billionaires who came to Berlin from Ukraine last week for a conference on European Jewish life skipped out on the gathering during a session on the global financial crisis.

Instead they were downing vodka shots with Israel’s chief rabbi in the basement of Berlin’s gleaming Chabad center.

One of the two billionaires, banking magnate Igor Kolomoisky, who with $2 billion in assets ranks No. 488 on Forbes magazine’s 2010 list of the world’s richest people, had just been named the new president of the host organization, the European Council of Jewish Communities. He was awarded the position after committing to give the organization an annual multimillion-euro gift for five years — at least $14 million.

Depending on whom one talked to, the appointment was either a generous lifeline to a cash-strapped organization focused on social welfare and education or a hostile takeover of a group with an important-sounding name.

The problem was that Kolomoisky had not been elected but appointed unilaterally by the organization’s outgoing president, Jonathan Joseph, who had met Kolomoisky for the first time earlier that day. Joseph defended his sudden decision as justified by the size of Kolomoisky’s gift — and by the need to respond to a man who might not be inclined to wait for an official vote from the board of directors.

“If we were going to do business together, we had to do business now,” Joseph told JTA, explaining why he skipped the “niceties of the procedures of the ECJC.” Joseph said, “It’s a good opportunity for him; it’s a good opportunity for us.”

The appointment was celebrated with a dinner of foie gras and braised duck for some 150 people at Berlin’s swankiest hotel, the Adlon — paid for by Kolomoisky, according to Joseph.

But the few board members from the social welfare organization who were present at the dinner found the turn of events jarring.

“This is not a democratic process,” Arturo Tedeschi, an EJCJ board member from Italy, told JTA. “It took place like a Soviet-style takeover.”

Tedeschi and four other board members subsequently resigned. Days later the Italian Union of Jewish Communities withdrew from ECJC.

It wasn’t just the undemocratic nature of the appointment that rankled board members and raised eyebrows here. The appointment also touched the nerve of East-West tensions simmering just beneath the surface of European Jewish life.

For decades, Eastern European and Russian Jewish communities were beneficiaries of the West’s largesse, and in the early years of post-Communist life they were rebuilt by American, Israeli and Western European Jews who did everything from pay for their meals to show them how to pray in synagogue.

Now, two decades since the fall of communism and with Western Jewish institutions mired in financial woes, Jews from the former Soviet Union — oligarchs who made their fortunes as capitalism emerged from the Soviet collapse — are swooping in to take over the leadership of several key European Jewish organizations.

Some view this as a positive development, a rescue from the East. While Western Jewish donors are tired and overextended, the philanthropists from the East are energetic and looking to give, Joseph said.

“They may dress funny and drink too much, but they’re sharp,” Joseph said. “They haven’t been rubbed down and made dull yet.”

Others view the changes more ominously, questioning the motives of the philanthropists from the East — businessmen for whom political connections come in handy.

“Now they have a little toy with which they can go around and say this is the opinion of European Jews,” said Bianca Tedeschi, who came to the conference from Italy with her husband, Arturo. “It’s very scary.”

Joseph defended Kolomoisky.

“His reputation, which we checked out, is a very, very good one,” Joseph said. “Yes, he has commercial disputes, but so does every businessman. His integrity is excellent.”

The ECJC is hardly the first such organization to become the pet project of a Russian-speaking oligarch.

In 2007, computer and agrochemical giant Moshe Kantor, No. 773 on the Forbes list with a net worth of $1.3 billion, was elected president of the European Jewish Congress. Alexander Mashkevitch, a Kazakh who has appeared on Forbes’ lists and is in the metals and gas businesses, heads the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress. Ukrainian Vadim Rabinovitch, another oligarch and media mogul, is a vice president of the ECJC.

But while Prokhorov’s purchase of the Nets was widely applauded (the basketball team, which last year nearly compiled the worst record in NBA history, could use some cash and a change of direction), the infusion of Easterners into Western Jewish organizations has not been universally cheered.

“We will not be colonized by a Ukrainian, that’s for sure,” one ECJC board member said at the parley in Berlin.

East-West tensions were evident throughout the conference, which drew not only Jewish organizational leaders from throughout Europe but several Israeli officials — including Education Minister Gidon Sa’ar and Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger — and the executive vice-president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein.

The East-West resentment runs both ways — something Rabinovitch, the other oligarch who was pouring vodka shots at Chabad in Berlin — acknowledged in a speech at the conference.

“Sometimes we look at each other and we seem to be afraid of each other,” Rabinovitch said of Eastern and Western European Jews at the session, to which he showed up clad in jeans, a long-sleeved T-shirt and a baseball cap (everyone else wore jackets and ties). “We’re now more active. We’re really taking steps forward.”

Many in the East view Western Europeans as timid and ineffectual, unwilling to stand up unabashedly for Israel and against anti-Semitism. Lamenting that fact, Rabinovitch recalled how, in Ukraine, “We found anti-Semitic organizations and terminated them.”

“It’s different in Western Europe — there are legal problems,” Rabinovitch said. “In the East, all our anti-Semites sit in prison.”

Eastern European Jewish officials also complain of a paternalistic attitude from the West that’s no longer appropriate now that Eastern Jewish communities have come into their own after decades of communist suppression of Jewish life.

“We’re ready to be an integrated part of the international Jewish community,” said Dmitry Maryasis, director of the Moscow office of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress.

In Western Europe, however, the emerging Jewish leaders from the East often are seen as uncultured, undignified and of questionable backgrounds. Some Jewish oligarchs have been arrested or linked with shady business dealings.

Leonid Nevzlin, a billionaire who once managed Russia’s largest energy company, Yukos, and is now a major Jewish philanthropist living in Israel, was convicted in 2008 by a Russian court of organizing five murders. Nevzlin, in absentia, dismissed the judgment as a politically motivated farce.

In September, Mashkevitch was caught aboard a luxury yacht stopped by the Turkish authorities for allegedly hosting an orgy with high-end prostitutes. Mashkevitch says he was not involved with the prostitution ring and was not arrested.

In one widely discussed incident, Kantor reportedly presented German Chancellor Angela Merkel with a bar of soap when they met several years ago to remind her of what the Nazis did to their Jewish victims as they were ushered into the gas chambers.

“They’re like loose canons; they’re not really answerable to anyone,” said Susy Stone, who came to the ECJC conference from London. “The Jewish community needs a little more levelheadedness.”

Is there no concern among ‘conservatives,’ ‘patriots,’ or ‘Christians’ about this hostile, foreign legal system creeping into our nation?

… the center … has hosted educational classes on Noahide Laws, the seven basic moral imperatives for all mankind given to Noah, according to the Talmud.

A Temple Not Just For Jews

Buyer envisions Masonic hall as city cultural center

Nancy Madsen – Watertown Daily Times

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

The executive director of the Adirondack Jewish Center Inc. envisions Watertown’s Masonic Temple as a cultural resource for the entire community.

Yaakov M. Getz, who has a doctorate in psychology, and his wife, Golda Y., both observant Jews, started the Adirondack Jewish Center in 2003. They opened a location in J.B. Wise Place in December 2004 and stayed a few years until the building changed ownership.

“We want it very much to be a community-oriented facility,” said Mr. Getz, who has rabbinical training and functions as a rabbi in kosher food certification and the center’s classes.

Last week, a state Supreme Court judge approved the sale of the downtown landmark by the Masonic Hall Association of Watertown to the center for $128,500. The purchase will transfer the property from one nonprofit group to another. The association has been trying to sell the neoclassical hall at 242 Washington St. since November 2003, with an initial asking price of $499,000.

Mr. Getz said he was first interested in the building several years ago.

“It is a magnificent building,” he said. “I fell in love with it immediately.”

The center is working toward a contract with an engineering firm. The first goal is to stabilize the exterior as quickly as possible. Mr. Getz expects the building costs to total over $1 million. The work would be supported through fundraising and any grants and economic development agency funding the center could qualify for, he said.

Like the first center, the Masonic Temple will house a community center and place of worship. But it likely also will host art exhibits, speakers, concerts and community events, Mr. Getz said. And the center will have a program of certifying products from local businesses as kosher.

“The emphasis will be on small businesses — getting them started in certification for a modest cost,” he said. “We can act as a support and guidance for them, introducing them to potential customers and distributors. We can act like a matchmaker and open up opportunities for marketing their products.”

Mr. Getz said that program will encourage sales and job growth for local businesses, draw more observant Jews to the area and offer some support for the center’s programs.

The Getzes have spent most of the last 20 years in the north country. Mr. Getz certifies as kosher dairy products from about 15 sources.

“The religious programming is a relatively small portion of what we do,” he said. “We will focus more on the community and development issues and get that rolling.”

The nonprofit center is starting a newsletter to connect Jews from Watertown to Plattsburgh, Mr. Getz said.

“One of our goals is to revitalize Jewish life in the north country,” he said.

Since the center’s last location closed, it has hosted educational classes on Noahide Laws, the seven basic moral imperatives for all mankind given to Noah, according to the Talmud.

The Getzes have volunteered as chaplains at Samaritan Medical Center and in the state prison system.

They also want to restart a children’s day camp and host programs for military service members through Fort Drum. The Getzes already host holiday meals and other events for soldiers.

“Jewish service members, as a group, are quite small and extraordinarily isolated,” Mr. Getz said. “We try to provide a home away from home.”